To be fair, many of the imperialist wars in the middle east have been joint military operations of certain NATO members. They have not really been sanctioned NATO operations though, with quite a few in NATO in opposition to the wars.

That being said, the distinction may seem meaningless when NATO resources are used by the imperialists anyway. However, the level of material support for the US agression towards Iran has been less than before, maybe even remarkably so.

The point is to be historically precise so that we can identify the development of the fracture of US domination within the imperial core.

save

path: 0 26134062, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 11

MaxLemminist 3 points 9 days ago

the level of material support for the US agression towards Iran has been less than before, maybe even remarkably so.

That has nothing to do with morals or the imaginary independence from the US.
The only difference is that Iran is not a defenseless resource-rich country where they can help the big bully leader in return for some crumbs of the loot.
They know joining this war would mean actual war and cost them a lot.
It's pure cowardice.
You only have to hear what that worm Rutte says or the ghouls VDL and Kallas.
They shamelessly give full verbal support to the nazi empire, condemn Iran and would be helping the war criminals if it were without consequence.
There is no fracture.

save

path: 0 26134062 26139200, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 8

Urist 2 points 9 days ago

Where did I say anything about morality? I said the material support has fallen, which is a drastic shift for the lackeys of the empire. They absolutely had the cowardly option, like they always has, to let the US use their bases, defend their actions diplomatically and provide military and logistical support after the initial invasion.

The support is not there (comparatively to before). The old NATO is dead and its not just an unspoken truth anymore. The European countries are preparing to split with the US, mostly because they fear to be abandoned, but the material steps already taken will ensure that ultimately they will renegotiate the compromise NATO always was for them.

Which is why we should pay attention to how defiant (read on a toothless European scale) the rest of NATO has been post the Greenland crisis. This will increase as the material dependency on the US as a security guarantee falters further.

save

path: 0 26134062 26139200 26144529, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 7

MaxLemminist 1 point 9 days ago

Where did I say anything about morality?

You didn't, I saw it as implied.
And there is no split with NATO, that is theater and shock therapy .
Now we vassals are already impoverished from sanctions and economic consequences they could not get the population to pay more for the US wars.
They created this fake rift and just like that we're on our own and our last cent has got to go to our defense.
'To our defense' in reality means being filling the bottomless hole of ukraine.

The US have outsourced the cost to us vassals so they can tackle China, Iran or whatever they want to harrass.
In 2 years when Trump is gone we'll suddenly be friends again with a respectable US imperialist democratic president warmonger.
The extortionate war crap rates will be kept in place.
Suckered again.

save

path: 0 26134062 26139200 26144529 26146084, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 6

Urist 2 points 9 days ago

We are going towards a multipolar world order and Europe knows it. There is no going back and this is not just theatrics. The "defense spending" in reality is buying independence from US vassalization. They are purposefully not buying American and laying the groundwork for another alliance where they are not subjugated.

Since I am not really getting anything for free here: No, this is still not a moral argument. The argument is that the capitalists of Europe will seek return on this investment. Trump going away, and who is to say he is, is not going to change this materially.

save

path: 0 26134062 26139200 26144529 26146084 26147252, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 5

CommanderCloon 2 points 10 days ago

Absolutely unrelated, but I love the username, should we get a dwarffortress community going? (unless that's already a thing and I'm just missing out lol)

save

path: 0 26134062 26135676, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

Urist 2 points 9 days ago

Join us here !dwarffortress@lemmy.ml!

save

path: 0 26134062 26135676 26138829, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

zbyte64 1 point 11 days ago

Ahh yes, "liberating" a population by bombing them. A policy shared by both NATO and Russia. Both should look at China's example for an alternative path.

save

path: 0 26116997, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 9

eldavi 8 points 10 days ago

the difference is in why they're bombing and what they're bombing -- nato/ukraine are bombing the same way the us is bombing iran.

save

path: 0 26116997 26128497, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 8

zbyte64 0 points 10 days ago

And yet China manages to take the high road with Taiwan, Japan, India, etc.

save

path: 0 26116997 26128497 26130503, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 7

elixir_fan 8 points 10 days ago

China is the factory of the world, and even then they're constantly told they're bad, and that they should be destroyed, etc. The difference is that they're the most industrialized and well organized country out there so they can call the bluff.

save

path: 0 26116997 26128497 26130503 26130913, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1

zbyte64 2 points 10 days ago

Yes and that is a winning strategy. As another ml account highlighted, war with the global north did not end well for the USSR, which comparatively speaking was much more a peer in terms of power than the current Russia. China's strategy is the one that recognizes that the tactics available flow down stream from material conditions.

save

path: 0 26116997 26128497 26130503 26130913 26132175, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

RiverRock 7 points 10 days ago

The difference is not a matter of moral fiber but strategic positioning. The western part of Russia is surrounded by NATO countries over land borders. The capitalist bloc simply can't threaten China in the same way, and if they could then we would be seeing a similar response.

save

path: 0 26116997 26128497 26130503 26133035, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 1

zbyte64 1 point 10 days ago

China made trade groups with their regional rivals, so no, we do not see a similar response. China's response is rooted in win-win diplomacy that improves the material conditions of all parties involved. It is less a moral calculation and more a material one that creates a moral authority.

save

path: 0 26116997 26128497 26130503 26133035 26135452, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

eldavi 4 points 10 days ago

madelinte pendelton postulated that china's foreign relations strategy is to avoid war at all costs with the global north since they saw how they strangled the soviet union into non-existence and it explains why they're willing to accept all the pain and simply walk away from all of their investments in latin america despite having the power to push back like the united states does.

save

path: 0 26116997 26128497 26130503 26130765, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2

zbyte64 5 points 10 days ago

Isn't Brazil part of BRICS? Their strategy isn't just to avoid war, they are building soft power at a time when the USA is burning goodwill for short term gain (though with Iran the only gains seem to be oil profits).

save

path: 0 26116997 26128497 26130503 26130765 26131678, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

Rules:

Rules: